UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1014
CLINTON C. BARLOW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and the City of
Norfolk under the state authority of the
Honorable Governor Mark R. Warner, and c/o the
Virginia Workers Compensation Commission,
Chairman Lawrence D. Tarr and J.J. Szablewicz,
and Carolyn L. Fleming, V.W.C. claims
examiner; EDMUND F. KELLY, Head CEO President
of The Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company;
ROBERT A. RAPAPORT, Esquire; RUSSELL N. BRAHM,
III, Esquire; DANIEL E. ROSNER, Esquire;
WINKELMAN INC, President Corporation and
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company c/o The
Law Firm of Clarke, Dolph, Rapaport, Hardy &
Hull, P.L.C.; STATE OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES, Division of C.D.L. and M.V.
licenses . . . Driver’s name: William Clark
Terry, driver of and international dump truck;
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, B/K/A the
International Harvestor Corporation, CEO
President, Daniel C. Ustian; TEAMSTERS UNION
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICA,
President, James P. Hoff, Jr.
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-734-2)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clinton C. Barlow, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Clinton C. Barlow appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his
subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of
the district court. See Barlow v. Virginia, No. CA-04-734-2 (E.D.
Va. Dec. 9, 2004; Feb. 16, 2005). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -